Monday, 22 June 2009

Jesus told a story about a man who while travelling was attacked and seriously injured. As he was lying by the side of road a religious leader – someone who had spent many years studying the Bible – came along, but seeing the man he crossed to the other side of the road and left him there.

A little later a another person passed by, someone who might well be described as being “pillar of their church community” who came from a family with a long and impressive history of religious involvement. But he also left the man laying there to die.

Finally a member of an obscenely heretical cult came along. Having no respect for the plain meaning of Scripture, he was part of a group directly responsible for the nation’s downfall, it’s moral decline, and growing decline in respect for all that God had revealed in His holy Word. Yet this blasphemer went to the help of the injured man; treating his wounds he took him to somewhere he might recuperate, and then personally guaranteed the man’s medical bills while ensuring the man would be fully cared for until completely recovered.

At the end of the story Jesus asked his undoubtedly disconcerted audience “Who do you think was a neighbour to the man who was attacked?”. Which, at least in the vernacular of the community in which I live, could well be rephrased as “Who was a friend to him?”.

The people in my blogroll, as well as many of those who regularly comment both here and elsewhere around the traps, are people whom I proud to consider friends. Some of them I know personally, others live on the other side of the world and I’ve only every communicated with them via blog comments and email. Some of them I only know through regularly lurking at their sites – but all of them have in some way inspired me, given me courage to keep seeking God at times when it all seems too hard, and all I'd really like to do is toss away this whole crazy notion of wrestling with what it means to takes one’s eyes off the gutter and instead reach for the stars.

Not all of them are Anglican; at least one’s an active atheist, and one is actually a whole bunch of people who run a dog shelter. Some are gay, some are straight, and all of them need to love and be loved. More than a few have also struggled with the darkness of mental illness, and one wears his madness as a badge of pride in a way not dissimilar (although I suspect he’ll be appalled by the comparison ;-) to the way St. Paul boasted of his own weakness as proof of God’s redemptive mercy.

Sometimes they make what I think are mistakes – a few much more often than others - and when I disagree with them strongly enough I always make a point of contacting them personally to see if I can help bring them back into line. Sometimes they agree with me, more often than not they explain their side of the issue and we meet somewhere in the middle, and sometimes they show me why I’m the one who’s got things wrong. Whatever happens, they are my friends, and I know that when I fall down – albeit as a result of being attacked, or (more likely) my own folly – they’ll help me to shelter and safety. As I’ll do for them – irrespective of how much we resemble each other theologically.

Occasionally one or the other of them is truly obnoxious, just as sometimes my dogs are capable of releasing the most utterly foul flatulence imaginable. Yet even then I still love them: sometimes we all react unpredictably to the things we’ve digested. When I’ve finally managed to deal with the log in my own eye I’ll be able to get around to doing something about the speck in theirs.

What I’ll never do apologise for them. They’re my friends – even if they are Samaritans.

53
comments:

thanks for the clarity. Unless I am very much mistaken you consider some repetitive unpleasantness acceptable and some not.

And the distinguishing feature appears to be that the former are your friends and the latter not.

Can you explain which bit of this I've got wrong? btw, note that I stated "repetitive". We all have moments we're not proud of. The question is whether consistent deliberate repeating of horrible behaviour should be addressed.

I'll throw that back to Scripture: what was the distinguishing feature between the varying responses to the man laying injured by the side of the road?

Nor did I say horrible behaviour shouldn't be addressed: I actually gave a very brief outline of how I endeavour to go about doing so, whilst bearing in mind that Jesus also said something about "seventy times seven"...

so now you're confusing me. You appear to say that some behaviour is wrong, but you're not prepared to state so publically.

I've got to admit, you still look like you're saying "being hurt is an acceptable excuse for all sorts of really vindictive nastiness".

Now, I have no issue when unbelievers act in all sorts of terrible ways - I'm obviously distressed by it but i don't expect better.

However, when people who claim to be Christians act in deliberately horrible ways, in ways that are purposefully designed to cause offense, when they speak about people in a quite disgusting way or use the basest and most unpleasant allusions - at that point I think we have to say it's simply unacceptable, no matter what hurts of greviances there are.

And when that behaviour is repetitive, when it is consistent and deliberately continuous then is there not a point where you say "enough!"?

it seems to me that you're not even remotely willing to say the same thing, at least not publically. Correct me if I'm wrong.

here's the thing. If the Samaritan then pursued a vindictive vendetta against the terrible thugs that beat up the man - at what point do you tell him that his first act of compassion is no excuse for his sin now?

Sorry, but this is really getting all too abstract for me. Just who among my friends are you talking about - ie. exactly which of them is it who's got you so annoyed?

And in answering it might be worth bearing in mind that most of the people dropping by here only know you in the context of your writing at a place which runs posts like this one. Check out robroy's crass comment & language at #1 if you're not sure what I mean...

Seems to me we've all got a lot of talking to do before any of us starts throwing accusations around.

there's nothing abstract about it. We've had this conversation before - you think what has happened to people makes their behaviour acceptable.

As for the RobRoy comment, I heartily agree. I don't think that kind of language is acceptable from anyone who claims to be a Christian.

But what would be utterly unacceptable is for someone claiming to be a Christian to deliberately set out to use that language as often as possible, with the intention to continually demean those they disagreed with.

David--why don't you try dealing with your robroys before you start insisting that Alcibiades deal with us dirty Samaritans?

I've been on the Web for a mighty long time and I have NEVER seen the kind of hateful vitriol on progressive sites that I have seen at Virtueonline or Stand Firm. (Talk of murdering my Presiding Bishop? Slanders against +Robinson that must make Jesus weep, especially since they are done in His name!)

Clean up your own house before you start trying to clean up mine, and I'll be happier to give you a hearing.

Frankly, I would buy tickets to watch you try. They will chew you up and spit you out for daring to suggest that ANYTHING they do is unholy or unChristian. I've seen it happen too many times. But I dare you to go over there and give this lecture to them.

Better yet, in American-ese, I double-DOG dare you!

I would bet, however, that you won't dare. You can be condescending and patronizing over here and we will just tell you that you are being rude. Over there, they will block your comments and set their sights on destroying you for having dared to suggest that they aren't representing God in the best possible way. If you think progressives are "unpleasant," you ain't seen nothing yet...

And I said exactly what I meant (although you should note that it was I, and not Alcibiades, who said it). I have never seen a progressive threaten to put a bullet through Bob Duncan's or +Jensen's brain. I have seen conservatives joking about doing it to my Presiding Bishop.

And, lest you forget, I've never heard of one of those conservative breakaway bishops (and God knows there are enough of them these days!) having to wear a bullet-proof vest during his consecration, the way +Robinson did.

Mr. Ould--You pretend like you are listening but all you are doing is playing stupid little semantic games with us. Until I see you go over to Stand Firm and take on Robroy, Greg Griffith, and the rest with the same passion you do here, you aren't worth arguing with. You are a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal. (Biblicist that you are, I'm sure you'll get that...)

what do you suggest now? That I post counter-examples to demonstrate my case? Would that really help? Would you then conceded that on both sides there is some quite appalling vitriol?

And can I suggest that it's counter-productive to accuse someone of tolerating name-calling and then proceeding to call them "not worth arguing with". You claim that I have no love - I think you would do better to get to know me a little first before you make such sweeping accusations. All of these statements are easy to type and much harder to take back. None of them help the discussion.

David - Doxy said that - not me. If you're going to accuse me of an exaggeration at least have the courtesy to first see if it was me saying it.

Although in this case I wish I had said it first, since I wholeheartedly agree with her. Not even on Father Christian (and you don't really believe someone who claims to oversee a "Liturgical Pole-dancing Fellowship" is to be taken at face value, do you?) have I seen violence advocated in the way that it quite frequently appears on SiF. Nor have I seen progressive sites attempting to argue that a vigilante killing is anything less than cold-blooded murder.

I'm not aware of anyone denying both sides can descend into vitriol, but it is only one side that has pushed things to the point that someone was instructed by the Police to wear a bullet-proof vest. The robroy line was pretty much chosen at random - sentiments like those can be found on most posts at that place.

Shifting gear somewhat - unlike you I read Doxy's criticism as not so much pertaining to a lack of love as to a absence of consistency and substance. Assuming I'm mistaken in that regard, why do you think she has accused you of being lacking in love?

it's quite clear - i'm being accused of hypocrisy - tolerating one thing while decrying it in a different place.

Thing is, I'm the one here saying it's got to stop everywhere amongst all who claim to be Christians. So I hear it. I just don't think it's being heard. Rather, what I'm repeatedly reading is people making excuses for such behaviour. I would like to think I've never excused it from anyone. It's unacceptable wherever it comes from.

Plus, what's with this "it's ok if it's satire" argument? Do we just need to put a ;-) on the end of every insult to make them ok? Are we really back in the playground again?

If you're going to accuse me of an exaggeration at least have the courtesy to first see if it was me saying it. I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm asking for you to point out that it's not so one-sided. Can you do that? because I have to say it looks like you find yourself incapable of it.

Which is, if I may be so bold, the problem. The problem is when either side says "you can't be nasty, but when we do it it's understandable and excusable". Doesn't matter who pulls that argument, it doesn't work.

Sorry you find me coming across as patronizing, David, although I won't deny the feeling is starting to become mutual.

This conversation is starting to feel like a kind of ping-pong, and if I didn't know you better I'd start to feel as if we're all just being trolled. My question wasn't rhetorical, but I will admit to having been curious to see if you'd be game to let your guard down enough to engage in a little self-reflection. Next time perhaps?

If you take the time to read what I've posted, you'll see that I'm not making any attempt to defend what you find offensive - at one point I even drew an analogy to the way my dogs smell at their occasional less olfactorily endearing moments. Nobody is disagreeing with you that both sides get out of line. If you're looking for an argument (and it's increasingly appearing that you are) you're not going to find one there.

What people have suggested is that you endeavor to address the sites on which you post before trying to straighten up those in which you don't participate as a member of their online community - and you've so far ignored that point.

Further, if (as I'm fairly certain you do) you object to accusations of hypocrisy and being a Biblicist, you're welcome to respond here to those charges. As others are to yours. The frustration I'm feeling is that seems as if you're not listening to and engaging with what anyone says, but just getting ready to make your next point.

Which, funnily enough, is how a lot of people I've met describe the experience of being "evangelized". One of the reasons, perhaps, that some of Sydney's fastest growing parishes aren't evangelical?

My question wasn't rhetorical, but I will admit to having been curious to see if you'd be game to let your guard down enough to engage in a little self-reflection. Next time perhaps?

Honestly, there's been plenty of letting my guard down. Just being here is part of it. But there's a difference between been asked rhetorical questions, which always make one feel like they're being trapped, and simply having an argument given to you.

The latter is, if I may be so bold, far less confronting.

What people have suggested is that you endeavor to address the sites on which you post before trying to straighten up those in which you don't participate as a member of their online community - and you've so far ignored that point. Actually, I don't feel I have ignored it. I've pointed out before a number of things I've done.I'm here to say that, from where I'm sitting, it looks like there is a vast over-toleration of stuff on both sides along with a lack of honesty (in the sense of havin the courage to accept it, rather than any duplicity) about the depth of the problem everywhere.

In response I feel like I'm getting "you big bad unloving bible literalist - you're not worth even talking to". Actually, the last one isn't a feeling - that's what I'm getting told. Seems that it doens't matter how many time I actually write "i get it", there is an unwillingness to take it at face value.

And here we are.

I'm really not sure what has been achieved. Perhaps somewhere someone will look beyond the stereotypes.

If you're going to include a quote at least try to read its opening phrase("My question wasn't rhetorical") before proceeding.

And I'll try saying this again: I appreciate your input here. Nobody that I'm aware of is trying to trap you into saying anything you don't want to or which you don't believe. I believe you are worth talking to: if I didn't I wouldn't be posting this.

So - trying to rewind umpteen posts and start again - yes, I do believe consistent deliberate repeating of horrible behaviour should be addressed. The mechanics of doing so will, however, greatly depend upon individual circumstance - now can you say what specific behaviour you have in mind?

Mate, I get that. You explain that you didn't intend the question to be rhetorical - I had already told you that it came across that way. That's really just a way of us clarifying the impressions that come across.

As for specifics, well I have 2 blogs who have singled me out for personal abuse (I use that word deliberately). I would shudder to think what my wife would feel if she read the stuff. I know a joke when I see one, and then I know nasty bullying. They're both of the latter.then there's MP. Some of the stuff he writes is plain obscene. Coupled with that are some quite vitriolic stuff in the comments on all those places and more. You don't need me to point it out to you - you're well aware of it yourself. Frankly, I don't want to keep dredging up specific examples. It becomes quite embarassing, I would suggest, even for commenters on this blog if we dig back on other blogs to see the sorts of things that are written. I see no need to personalise this sort of conversation in that way, though so no specifics of that sort at this time - I don't think it would be constructive.

What I’ll never do apologise for them. They’re my friends – even if they are Samaritans.

Amen, Alcibiades. If I had only friends whose every word and action I approved of and agreed with, I would have no friends. In the same vein, I'm sure that much of what I say and do drives some of my friends near to the edge, and if they did not bear with me, I would, once again, have no friends.

Anyone who criticises Mr Ould should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. It's childish and quite disgusting. The place for that sort of thing is Viagraville. Mr Ould's "lifestyle" is based upon Bible Truth. Therefore, he is highly qualified to make world-wide pronouncements about those he doesn't approve. e.g. a gay Calvinist Minister in Aberdeen, Scotland - roundly condemned from Australia - whose lifestyle is "unscriptural". Mr Ould doesn't seem to realise that his horrible behaviour is not just malicious. It's incredibly funny.

David - sorry the delay in replying. A sick notepad, assorted deadlines, and the usual chaos have again conspired to keep me away from here.

Intentionally or otherwise, and like it or not, you've become the blogosphere face of a diocese which a great many Christians in the Anglican Communion dislike. As such you have to accept that serving as an apologist for something that unpopular will result in your being criticised, sometimes to the point of ridicule. But as long as you continue playing an active role at Stand Firm, and are not perceived as taking an equal stand against the offensiveness and outright threats of violence that are standard fare at that site any complaint you might make of other people's rudeness are simply not going to be taken seriously.

As for your wife shuddering upon hearing what's been said about you; on reading that my wife burst into laughter, and suggested she consider what gets said about her husband before getting too worked up about anything MP, Father Christian or Fr. Heron ever come out with about you. She's got a point too: any of those three or their admirers ever called your wife's work and attempted to discuss her character with whoever answered the phone?

Satire has rarely been a tool appropriated by conservatism, and I understand that you might find it uncomfortable when directed your way. So to put it bluntly: toughen up, David. If those of us on this side of the church seem at times robust and boisterous it's often because that's the path through which God has brought us in order that we may survive. We also take the Gospel extremely seriously, and are getting sick of being told we don't. And sometime we, like Luther, find laughing at the devil a more effective strategy than arguing.

I am told that, in the comments on Stand Firm this week, the Episcopal Church was referred to as a bunch of "leprous satanists." (I trust the correspondent--I don't go over there because it does such incredible spiritual damage.)

I'll be sure and ask my correspondent if you took that commenter to task.

If those of us on this side of the church seem at times robust and boisterous it's often because that's the path through which God has brought us in order that we may survive.

But, again, what you appear to be arguing is that God has deliberately intended to bring such individuals to a point where they behave in ungodly ways and, thus, it is acceptable.

We also take the Gospel extremely seriously, and are getting sick of being told we don't.

you know, I measure how serious someone takes it not by the claim, but by the life. And when I see repeated deliberate maliciousness with intent to cause distress or to belittle then I wonder how seriously the gospel is being taken.

Can you really blame me?

Once again, the issue has never been whether I'm a pansy and can take some stick but whether we should ever defend or condone such behaviour. You consistently argue that it can be defended or condoned. Fair enough. At least you're owning it.

Alcibiades is responsible for everything that his friends write because they are being "deliberately" offensive and he isn't castigating them right and left.

You are responsible for NOTHING that your friends write, because they aren't being offensive "deliberately." And there are just too many "accidentally" offensive e-mails at StandFirm for you to wade through them all.

I get it.

Mr. Ould--you are either dishonest or stupid, and I'm honestly not sure which it is at this point. What you CERTAINLY are is a hypocrite.

Go clean up Stand Firm and VirtueOnline. Start with your own house and the log in your own eye. Deal with the folks who talk about putting a bullet through the brain of my Presiding Bishop or who spread lies about +Gene Robinson. Deal with the folks who refer to people like me as "leprous satanists."

Then, and ONLY then, will you have any credibility to come over and try to hold Alcibiades' feet to the fire.

Alcibiades is responsible for everything that his friends write because they are being "deliberately" offensive and he isn't castigating them right and left.

Nope, never said that.

You are responsible for NOTHING that your friends write, because they aren't being offensive "deliberately." And there are just too many "accidentally" offensive e-mails at StandFirm for you to wade through them all.

Nope, never said that either.

I get it.

No, I don't think you do.

Mr. Ould--you are either dishonest or stupid, and I'm honestly not sure which it is at this point. What you CERTAINLY are is a hypocrite.

Nice. There is a third option, that you have jumped to an assumption about what I'm saying.

Go clean up Stand Firm and VirtueOnline. Start with your own house and the log in your own eye. Deal with the folks who talk about putting a bullet through the brain of my Presiding Bishop or who spread lies about +Gene Robinson. Deal with the folks who refer to people like me as "leprous satanists."

I can't help you with Virtue and I do what I can on Stand Firm.

Then, and ONLY then, will you have any credibility to come over and try to hold Alcibiades' feet to the fire.

I don't recall holding any feet to the fire. I'm only asking for clarity on what is acceptable.

I think I have it now.

I am not going to hold my breath that you will.

With the greatest respect, you give no indication of ever having held your breath. You have, rather, assumed the worst of me and not attempted to actually read what I'm writing.

I understand you're upset, but it's not actually a justification for it.

No David. In this context patronising is when you disregard and/or dismiss what others say because you're convinced that your own point is the only one worth making. Look at your own response to Doxy if you'd like an example.

I suggested you think and pray because I'm no longer convinced you have any real interest in hearing what those disagreeing with you are saying. If you're not prepared to prayerfully question your own house you're hardly likely to have much compassion for those in mine.

I suggest you ask Doxy how your response left her feeling before jumping to conclusions in that regard. From where I sit it doesn't look like you heard very much of what she said at all. Irrespective of whether or not you believe you're "listening fine".

Reading the posts here, my gratitude to my family for raising me atheist only increases. I have never, ever, seen so many old ladies of both sexes bitching about nonsense for so long as in religion. Your invisible friend clearly doesn't inspire any better behaviour in any of you. I don't know why you bother. Anglicanism long ago became the Shinto of the English-speaking world. Irrelevant. Shrinking.Disproportionately gay. Median age 55+. One fourth of those 18-30 are now atheist/agnostic. Good for them.

Fun? This is fun? Religion brings happiness? Like root canal is a great way to spend an afternoon? And your sarcasm is effective-why? Can you bring one argument for the existence of something no-one has ever been able to provide evidence for? Or do you think watching grown men swan around in silk, whirling smoke in the air entertainment?

"Your blog is one of the nastiest, self-justifying, other-accusing, plainly dishonest things I have ever seen on the net."An anonymous evangelical who's never seen this. And who probably doesn't want you to see it either.